Standing Committee E

[Mr. Christopher Chope in the Chair]

Clause 6

Functions in respect of recreation etc

Amendment moved [this day]: No. 183, in clause 6, page 4, line 13, leave out ‘adequate' and insert ‘sufficient'.—[Mr. Chaytor.]

Christopher Chope: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following amendments: No. 185, in clause 6, page 4, line 13, leave out ‘adequate' and insert ‘such'.
No. 184, in clause 6, page 4, line 14, at end insert
‘as may be sufficient according to their needs'.
No. 149, in clause 6, page 4, line 15, after ‘may', insert
‘enter into partnerships with other public, private or voluntary organisations in order to'.
No. 236, in clause 6, page 4, line 18, after ‘centres,', insert ‘field centres,'.
No. 64, in clause 6, page 4, line 29, after ‘provision', insert ‘or commissioning'.
No. 150, in clause 6, page 5, line 30, at end insert—
‘(d) a local authority must have regard to the access requirements of qualifying young persons with a disability.'.
No. 23, in clause 6, page 6, line 27, at end add—
‘(3) Provision under this section shall be restricted to that which can be funded by the revenue support grant separately identified but not specifically allocated or ring-fenced.'.

David Chaytor: I shall continue from the point at which we were interrupted.
I was referring to a report last year by the Select Committee on Education and Skills that I hoped would be a turning pointing in the debate on the importance of education outside of the classroom. Certain things must be in place if we are going to strengthen and diversify the extra-curricular activities that I think were much stronger in years past. The functions of local authorities and their capacities to provide the facilities listed under proposed new sections 507A and 507B make an important contribution.
There is a link between the importance of physical activity—sport, physical education, Outward Bound expeditions such as hill climbing, and the great range of physical activities in which young people can get involved—and the wider concerns about children’s health. There is an important section in the Bill on health and diet, but it seems to me that that and the matter before us must be considered together as part of a coherent approach to raising standards of health and physical well-being among young people.
Finally, I have a slight reservation about clause 6 that it is important to flag up. The clause focuses on recreation and physical activity, but does not refer specifically to cultural activities and the role of dance, drama and music as important aspects of the wider out-of-school curriculum. I shall draw attention to the success of the creative partnership scheme that the Government initiated in recent years, and from which 36 local authorities—I think—can now benefit. The scheme is directed particularly at parts of the country and schools in which there is not a strong tradition of cultural activity; it enables schools to embark on a range of artistic, cultural and musical activities and to open up areas of experience that children might have not enjoyed previously—visits to theatres and concerts and from theatre groups, poets, writers and artists in residence. That is an excellent activities programme, and I hope that in due course it might extend the principles that underlie the creative partnership scheme to all local authorities and schools in the country. With that I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response to the issues that I have raised.

Sarah Teather: I shall speak to amendments Nos. 149 and 64 together and then amendment No. 150.
Amendments Nos. 149 and 64 make the point that local education authorities do not necessarily have to provide all the positive leisure services themselves. In some cases, authorities might deliver efficiency and choice—that most important of words that we have devoted so many of our hours to discussing—more effectively by commissioning those services from the private or voluntary sectors. It is important to place that on the record because, despite extensive rhetoric about dividing the commissioner and provider roles between local education authorities and schools, the implication appears to be that, although local education authorities should not provide schools, they should provide leisure facilities. We are merely probing the Government on that matter to get some points put on the record.
I can think of many examples in boroughs of services being bought in for one reason or another, such as the buying in of swimming facilities from local leisure services. I can think of many other instances in which youth facility services might be bought in from the voluntary sector. That often works extremely well—indeed, it might work better than if those services were provided directly by the local education authority.
Amendment No. 150 is intended to ensure that positive leisure-time activities are accessible to disabled young people. The amendment is supported by Mencap, which tells me that eight out of 10 young people with a learning disability do not attend any after-school club, that seven out of 10 children or young people with a disability were made to feel uncomfortable at their local leisure service, and that only one in five after-school clubs have any young person with a disability attending.
What do we mean when we talk about accessibility? We mean accessibility to the building, but we mean much more than that. The amendment is important because it is not simply about ensuring that there is adequate wheelchair access; it might also be about ensuring that there is appropriate signage or symbols so that disabled people know where everything is. For example, if they have a learning disability, it might be important to have signage for certain rooms, toilets or specific activities.
The amendment would also ensure that there was a safe environment for young people with a learning disability. Such young people are particularly vulnerable to bullying, for example, which often prevents them from taking part in after-school activities. The amendment would ensure that those young people were given the support that they needed, from their staff or their peer group, to access all the activities that take place. We have a concern that if that is not clearly stated in the Bill, local education authorities might provide or commission leisure activities that are suitable for the majority of young people in the area, rather than make sure that all those facilities are accessible for young people with a disability.
The hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) made interesting wider points, particularly about the need to make sure that we benefit from the opportunities the Olympics provide. That is dear to my own heart, as I come from the borough where Wembley stadium is located—if it ever gets finished. It might have many opportunities to provide sporting facilities and to ensure that there is wider accessibility for young people in the area. The hon. Gentleman made good points about the role that sport can play in giving young people more opportunities to take part in sporting activities, and thereby in driving down petty crime. I am very supportive of the sentiments he expresses.

Nick Gibb: I am very sympathetic to the hon. Lady’s amendments. I particularly welcome her comments regarding leisure facilities for those with special needs, and her point that local authorities should play a commissioning role and enter into partnerships with other public and private or voluntary organisations. She is right about that.
I am also sympathetic to the points made by the hon. Member for Bury, North. He is right to say that in recent years there has been a rise in unpleasant and antisocial behaviour. It is of concern that that continues to rise. He is also right in saying that there is a link between that and the lack of things for some young people to do. However, I suspect that there are also deeper reasons than that.
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the issue of the proportion of schools that achieve the Government target of two hours of sport per week. It would be interesting to hear the Government’s response to that point about the minimum level of sport in schools. I would also like to hear their response on what proportion of young people learn to swim by the age of 11; the hon. Gentleman raised that, too.
There is no doubt that the objective of clause 6 is laudable and correct. It ensures that local authorities secure access for young people to leisure and recreational facilities and to other activities in their area. One of the persistent complaints of young people and their parents is that there are insufficient places that are both safe and sheltered where young people can go and meet their friends and socialise.
One reason why young people are often found congregating around bus shelters or on street corners is that they do not have more suitable places to meet one another. That is why we support many of the objectives of the “Youth Matters” Green Paper. It is also why my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition announced his proposal last August for a youth community action programme. Under the programme, every school leaver would be able, if they wished, to do three to four months of voluntary work in the community. As he pointed out, there is strong support for the vision of building something that gives all young people in our country the right to a shared experience that will help prepare them for their responsibilities as adult citizens.
We are behind the clause 6 initiative and the duties that it will introduce. On centralisation, though, the Minister should take care when lobbing stones from her glass house. Paragraph 4.10 of the regulatory impact assessment says:
“Although guidance is useful in explaining the required changes, guidance alone will not receive sufficient local emphasis to achieve the changes required. The legislation contains specific requirements which should not be considered as purely advisory—as implied by non-statutory guidance.”
However, when one reads clause 6 without the advantage of reading simultaneously the Government’s press release of 8 March on the £115 million budget provided through the youth opportunities fund, it appears that a sizeable new duty is being imposed on local authorities without any funding to back it up. The purpose of amendment No. 23 is to ensure that clause 6 is interpreted so that the duties it imposes will not extend beyond the funding from central Government. Otherwise, the funds will have to be obtained either from hefty further increases in council tax or from the reduction of services in other areas. I searched the regulatory impact assessment in vain for an estimate of the costs involved in fulfilling the new duty, other than £2 million to fund publicity for activities.
The statement of policy on the guidance that the Secretary of State will issue under the clause in due course is a little more helpful. For example, paragraph 7 explains that a section of the guidance
“will explain that the duty applies to securing access to sufficient provision for young people in the area rather than securing provision in the area.”
However, the only real hint of the financial consequences of the duty is in paragraph 17, which says:
“The guidance will state that where current provision is failing to meet needs, the authority should re-shape its own provision, commissioning services as appropriate, and work with partner agencies to help them re-shape services as appropriate.”
It goes on to say in paragraph 18 that
“the guidance will explain that the provision available in the local area will be provided by a variety of organisations and that while the duty does require the authority to ensure that sufficient provision exists, the role of the authority in securing sufficient provision is broader than simply providing direct services. Increasingly we expect the authority to act as commissioner and facilitator of services rather than as provider.”
I think that that supports the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather).
Paragraph 22 of the statement of policy, however, says:
“The guidance will explain that in acting upon this legislative requirement, the authority will wish to consider the commissioning of services alongside other measures to secure alternative provision. It will suggest that these other measures include the provision of assistance, financial or otherwise, for alternative providers.”
So there appear to be some financial obligations that will go beyond the £115 million in funding through the youth opportunities fund.
The amendments are probing amendments so that the Ministers can clarify their position on the funding of the duties. While they are clarifying that point, will they also say something about the youth opportunity card? The clause does not refer to it, despite the fact that it is a major feature of the Green Paper and of the Government’s policy, particularly following the announcement of a pilot scheme in 10 areas during the next two years. Can they confirm that it is because the scheme is only being piloted that legislation for the card is not included in the Bill, or that it is not necessary to introduce primary legislation for the card if it is decided that the pilot is a success and the Government wish to roll it out nationally?
We welcome the clause and we welcome the provision of recreational facilities for young people. That is one of the many reasons why we decided to support the Bill. However, some clarification of the funding issues would be helpful.

Angela Smith: I begin by referring to the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North, who pointed to the importance of providing young people with things to do and places to go as one means of tackling boredom and antisocial behaviour among that group. It is important to remember that providing things to do and places to go is not just about tackling the minority who cause problems for the rest of us. Self-esteem and the development of team-working and social skills are also good reasons for providing those facilities for young people. The kinds of activities we are talking about are good for preparing young people for employment in later life. For those reasons alone, they ought to be supported.
The importance of working with a range of partners in developing the provision was mentioned by the hon. Member for Brent, East. I look forward to the Minister’s response, because I feel passionately that it is not the job of local authorities to provide all the services that are of relevance to young people. The voluntary sector, in particular, is much better placed in many ways to provide those facilities; indeed, it is already doing so on a significant scale. In my city, we have many sports clubs working right across the local authority boundary. Let us not forget the usual groups, well established in this country, such as the Guides, the Scouts and the Woodcraft Folk, which was always the great rival to the former—and still is in many ways—in the city of Sheffield. It provides a significant choice for young people. Then there is the Duke of Edinburgh award, which is now made available to almost all school children aged 14 and over in Sheffield; I think that there is only one secondary school there that fails to provide it. The Duke of Edinburgh award is in itself valuable and should be made available to every young person in the country; it deserves our support. There are also all the examples of the voluntary sector and ordinary community groups putting on sports activities; there are football, hockey and ice-hockey clubs and all the rest of it. For all those reasons we must resist the temptation to think that the duty on the local authority to provide is a duty on the local authority to administer the activities itself. It is really important that local authorities work in partnership.
In my city, there are great traditions relating to the Peak district, our greatest natural resource. It is important to remember that every young person deserves the opportunity to experience that resource—to be given the chance to indulge in rock-climbing and other activities that, for many young people, are just pipe dreams and are not made real.
I hope that the Minister will resist the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) on the grounds that whether or not a local authority agrees on funding for extra facilities and services for young people is a matter for local discretion. A local authority may decide that there ought to be more investment in the young people of an area, and I do not think that central Government have the right to restrict local authorities which make that choice.
Also, much of the complementary funding required to meet the terms of the duty on the local authority is already being provided in many ways by activities that are laid on by the voluntary sector and through small contributions from parents towards those activities. Let us not forget that that infrastructure is already in place. The funding that the voluntary sector can tap into means that the duty should not be funded just by local authorities. A range of funding opportunities is available and the packages that will enable the duty to be fulfilled can be put together—indeed, they have been put together by local authorities for many years.
Amendment No. 236 is simple: it would insert the words “field centres”. I hope that the Minister will respond positively to the amendment or at least come back to it on Report and Third Reading. Learning about the environment in which they live is surely an important part of every young person’s experience. The links to citizenship are strong—a young adult who learns to appreciate his or her environment, the importance of biodiversity and the wonders of nature will surely be much better equipped to make a civilised contribution to society.
The hon. Member for Brent, East said that local authorities should be commissioners of services, and this is one area of provision in which they should be. Many schools and colleges have already experimented with the concept of the outdoor classroom. They have tried to develop their own field centres; indeed, one of the primary special schools in Sheffield has developed a classroom for the future, available to all children in the city, that exploits the natural environment and develops environmental science study via the great pond just outside the school boundary. All that is great, but it does not go far enough. Only local authorities can develop the field centres that we are talking about on a scale that would enable all young people in a city to learn something significant and worth while about the environment and biodiversity and how to respect the natural environment.

Nadine Dorries: Is the hon. Lady saying that only local authorities can develop ponds, school farms and external Outward Bound-type activities from which children can benefit? Does she not think that the independent sector could do that as well?

Angela Smith: I am surprised at the hon. Lady’s comments. I was going to say that schools in Sheffield have already developed such provision, but I am talking about field centres on a much larger scale. Local authorities could commission, organise and develop such centres, but that does not mean that they would have to run them; I am sure that voluntary organisations such as the RSPB would be only too willing to do that. However, the onus and the responsibility for developing and possibly putting in the initial funding for their development should lie with the local authority.
We need more field centres and other such provision to ensure that the experience available to our young people is as rounded and broad as possible. I congratulate the Under-Secretary on clause 6, which represents a wonderful commitment. I am delighted that we are placing a duty on local authorities to develop such provisions. In my last year as cabinet member for education, I worked really hard to ensure that my local authority implemented such provision on a comprehensive scale, drawing in a partnership of voluntary sector bodies, sports clubs and so on. The Government now say that local authorities do not have the choice but have the duty to do that. I welcome that duty.
As I said, I hope the Under-Secretary will take on board the points about field centres and the importance of the outdoor classroom and of fulfilling the commitment that we made at the last general election to delivering on that point.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I want to speak briefly to amendments Nos. 183 to 185. I support many of the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North. I, too, congratulate Ministers on the inclusion of this important clause. It has not had adequate praise and its potential has not been fully recognised. It builds in an important way on the “Youth Matters” agenda.
In my constituency, we have undertaken a wide-ranging consultation exercise with young people, based on that agenda. Two facts that came out of it were that young people wanted a wider range of services to be made available to them and that they wanted to be actively involved in the development of those services. Therefore, it is important that the clause should cover the inclusion of young people in the development of their services.
We are also lucky to be piloting the youth opportunity card in my constituency. A couple of weeks ago, I met a group of young people and their representatives. They were really interested in this part of the Bill and very pleased that the Government are making it statutory a duty on local authorities to provide a range of services for them and with them.
I acknowledge and support the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North about the importance of giving young people facilities to keep them from engaging in antisocial behaviour and to help them to develop. However, we should be careful that we do not concentrate merely on preventing antisocial behaviour. We want to encourage all young people to be good and active citizens. If we are to do that, we have to invest in them, and that means providing services for them; that is critical to their social and cultural development.
In conclusion, I welcome the measure. I hope that local authorities will take it on board wholeheartedly and will come up with exciting provision for young people across a range of services.

Mary Creagh: I echo the comments made on this clause by colleagues from all parties and will speak specifically to amendment No. 236. As my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Dr. Blackman-Woods) said, it is impossible to overstate the importance of the fact that the clause places an obligation on local authorities, for the first time ever, to provide something for young people and to consult with the users—the young people themselves. Now, instead of having things done to them, young people will see things being done with them. That is key in dealing with teenagers—anybody with teenage children will testify to that. Fortunately, I have a few years to wait before the hormones hit my household.
That is important, and it links to the national youth voluntary service that was announced in the Budget, in respect of which public and private funding will be used to provide models of active citizenship for young people. It is an exciting time to be a teenager, with the youth opportunities fund in place and so many different provisions being made. We should avoid the patchwork approach that has been taken in the past, which has meant that some local authorities have provided youth services and others have chosen not to, resulting in unequal provision across the country.
On the field centres provision, I should like to hear how the Under-Secretary sees the manifesto for education outside the classroom developing. I know that there has been consultation on it; perhaps he can lift the veil on what he might promise us. We cannot overstate the importance of out-of-classroom learning in developing the creativity of young people. Nordic countries are developing forest classrooms, in which young people are educated almost wholly out of doors, weather permitting, and I have a friend in Dorset who runs a nursery with a forest classroom. I shall talk to Ministers about that afterwards. The children in such classes have an incredibly rich learning experience.
Those in the forefront of educational thinking are beginning to see how classroom learning can interact with the real world. It improves motivation, nurtures social skills and creates active and politically engaged young citizens, as well as healthy ones. I am sure that when we come to the clauses on school food and tackling obesity, there will be amendments to reinforce that approach. It can certainly be an inspirational way of giving children a mentally and physically healthy start in life.
I would just like to share with the Committee the experiences of Sandal Magna in my constituency. As far as I am aware, it is the first school in the country to have won a green flag for its award-winning work with out-of-classroom learning. It started by going for healthy school status but then realised that through the development of its wildlife garden and whole school environmental policy it could teach children all about the best ways of looking after the environment. I visited the school earlier this year. A teacher told me that it can be slightly annoying because sometimes staff can be sitting marking work in the afternoon and children will come in and say, “Miss, are you sure you need the light on?”. They switch the lights off and the teachers find themselves in the dark.
We could all feed an over-zealous approach to energy efficiency into our office environments. Those people are working from a Victorian school building, which, thankfully, is about to be totally redeveloped by a £2 million building programme. The experience of the healthy school status and the environmental school scheme is even feeding into the project for the new school. People are thinking about how they can incorporate the outdoor learning environment into the new school, how the community, which is a very disadvantaged one, can be encouraged to come into the school, and how their science lessons can involve the wildlife area and things such as that.
Finally on clause 6, we could be witnessing a flourishing of some of the more traditional youth organisations. We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Ms Smith) about the Duke of Edinburgh scheme and Outward Bound. Sadly, however, the Youth Hostels Association has been in almost terminal decline for many years. Some of its hostels have had to be shut down because people now want en suite bathrooms and the like. There is something character building about being on Kinder Scout in the middle of a snowstorm, with not much electricity, and then staying in a youth hostel that could encourage adults and young people to count their blessings when they return home.

Jonathan R Shaw: Would we all have to share?

Mary Creagh: I make no comments about sharing with my hon. Friends.
Situations such as those I mentioned are character building. I have been saddened by the decline in youth hostelling and the lack of independence of young people; they do not put their backpacks on and go climbing in the Peak district any more. There is a timidity about the outdoors. Engaging with the outdoors is about young people and children engaging with themselves and finding out about their own limits and boundaries. I welcome this landmark clause in the development of a young persons policy in this country.

John Hayes: Two or three things have emerged during the discussion of this group of amendments that deserve amplification, not least because the hon. Member for Bury, North deserves our thanks for drawing the Committee’s attention to the important area of school sport. He highlighted several questions that he wants the Under-Secretary to answer and focused particularly on the amount of time that is devoted to school sport in the curriculum.
I shall add to those questions—helpfully, I am sure the Under-Secretary will agree—by asking him to talk about the type of participation in sport. This is not just about the amount of time devoted to sport; it is about its quality and the nature of what children are involved in. It will be interesting to hear whether he can offer any facts on that. If he cannot do so at the moment, he might want to follow the matter up when he has had a chance to do some research.
I am also interested to know what the level of engagement between schools is, and particularly whether they play matches against other local schools and are involved in soccer, cricket or another sport. I am often told that it is difficult to get enough schools to participate in a given locality to make such things possible. I would therefore be interested in the Minister’s perspective on the interaction between schools regarding competitive sport.
I would also like to know how much sport takes place in schools, and to what extent schools take advantage of other facilities. Swimming, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Bury, North, is a good example of that. In most cases—certainly in primary schools—swimming will be provided by access to the local public baths. Secondary schools might have their own swimming facilities, but that is more of a rarity than the norm. The ability of schools to access relevant local resources conveniently, practically and affordably is critical to achieving the objectives set out by the hon. Gentleman at the beginning of his sensible comments.
Such information should be given to the Committee so that we can consider the matter more carefully. By the time it comes to us, we might already have had to make a decision on this amendment, but I am sure that we will return to these matters in some form later. We will go on to discuss some aspects of school life, what motivates people and the need to encourage them to engage in school life. Sport plays an important role in all of that, not just because it is about fitness, but because it is frequently a vehicle for endeavour and achievement, not least among those young people who are not very academic.
We must lift our sights beyond the narrow understanding of education as being wholly academic. We on the Committee know that that is not so. I know that the Under-Secretary feels as strongly as I do on this, because I have discussed it with him. We need to emphasise aspects of education that allow children to engage in different experiences, to fulfil all kinds of potential, and to acquire and have the opportunity to use different skills. Sport plays an important part in that, as well as providing opportunities to improve physical fitness and prowess.
I shall elaborate slightly on my earlier point about public open space, because there seem to be contradictory notions emanating from the Government—I did a bit of research on that. While the Committee was adjourned, I had tea at the Savoy. It was a most splendid affair, but that did not prevent me from doing a little research on the subject that we discussed this morning. It is important to be able to multi-task in this modern world, and while simultaneously researching and dining I was able to dig out some information that I hope will be as efficacious as my tea was.
The Government have argued that they are protecting the sale of school playing fields—in answer to a parliamentary question in 2001, they suggested that they have introduced a number of new initiatives to fulfil their commitment to avoid the loss of playing fields—while also arguing that the sale of school playing fields has provided resources to invest in sporting facilities, as the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport said in response to a subsequent parliamentary question. So the Government argue both that they are trying to stop playing fields from being sold and that their sale is helpful because it provides resources to invest in local community sport. I want the Government to make their view on this clear. It is important that we understand that access to open space—ideally in the school itself, but, as my example regarding swimming shows, that is not always practical—is vital if we are to achieve the objectives set out by the hon. Member for Bury, North.
This issue is about both timetabling and resources. Children need access to open space to use the energy that they have so much of. I have something to say about the planning system in that respect. Over lunch I was also able to read a booklet that I first read some time ago, published by Policy Exchange and called “Bigger Better Faster More: Why some countries plan better than others”. It draws a comparison between the planning system in the United Kingdom and that in other European countries, particularly Germany and Switzerland, and paints a graphic picture of how green space in conurbations differs in different countries as a result of their planning systems. I do not want to digress too far. You will not allow me to do so, Mr. Chope, and I see your owl-like gaze, which may anticipate an owl-like swoop on me if I do not draw my remarks to order. However, it is important to say that, increasingly, in some of those other countries green space and open space is more available than in some of our conurbations.
That has a direct impact on children’s activities in school time—because of the need to gain access to spaces beyond the school gate—and in leisure time. Much sporting activity takes place, of course, outside school. Once we have stimulated children to get involved in school sport, as we all want them to, it is vital that they should have other avenues by which to pursue those interests. My five-year-old son is about to start junior cricket in the next few weeks with the local club in our village. We are lucky enough to have a cricket ground at the bottom of our garden. It does not belong to me, I am sad to say, but it is easily accessible as a result of being there.
That opportunity is provided by the sort of bottom-up, community-oriented activity that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough talked about. I wholly agree with her—to turn my attention to the amendments tabled by the Liberal Democrats—that the solutions to the issues and challenges of civil society are often best provided by the voluntary sector. Communities seem to me to be natural, organic things—the consequence of fellowship born of shared interest. It is in people-sized institutions that much of the best work of civil renewal takes place. It is of course important that local authorities should play their part in facilitating and encouraging that, and removing obstacles to such civil renewal, but it is often the bottom-up approach that the hon. Lady described so well that is likely to provide solutions to some of the problems besetting our communities.
I am sympathetic to the hon. Lady’s view that what we are considering is a partnership between such voluntary local effort and what the Government and local government can do. Sometimes the Government should step forward and at other times it should step back so that others can step forward. She is right about that, and I should be interested to hear the Liberal Democrat response to her helpful critique of their perspective on those matters.
Our useful debate has illustrated what I hope will become a theme in our considerations in coming days and weeks—that the best education has the spirit of co-operation, as well as competition, at its heart. There is no better example of how to do both things simultaneously than sport. Sport is a fine example of how children can be taught those important, lifelong lessons. My remarks about public open space were really about situations in which private interest is not enough to bring about the kind of healthy, strong and vibrant communities, with active, participating citizens, that we all want as we move, beyond the Bill, into the future. What matters is what we share, because we are in this together, not out for ourselves. I am delighted that the hon. Member for Bury, North tabled the amendments so that we could have a short debate with so many useful contributions.

Edward Leigh: The hon. Member for Bury, North has done the Committee a service by drawing our attention to the difference between the words “sufficient” and “adequate”.
I have three questions for the Under-Secretary. Will a great deal change on the ground as a result of this excellent clause? Is there any possibility that the standard of sport in state schools will rise to that in the independent sector? As far as my children or anybody else’s are concerned, I have no angst about the state sector or the independent sector—I am neither for nor against—but it is quite obvious to us all that the standard of sports facilities at day schools and boarding schools in the independent sector is a great deal higher than at state schools. It is perhaps a question of resources, but it is also a question of will-power. My first question, therefore, is whether this excellent clause will make a difference, or is it just apple pie and motherhood?
Secondly, what will the clause do to reverse the catastrophic decline in the number of sports fields and the amount of team games played? Some of my children attend state schools, and I am conscious of the fact that although swimming, which the Committee has debated, is widely available, team games and other sports apparently do not exist during school hours. My boy often had to travel long distances and do extra-curricular activities to engage in any kind of team sport, be it rowing or anything else. Incidentally, he is now in a private school, so the whole thing is laid on, and he does games every afternoon, which he loves. Therefore, there is a difference. What will the clause do to reverse that catastrophic decline?
Lastly, which local authorities are not taking the steps set out in the clause? We would like to know. Presumably the provisions mean something and will make a difference, so the Under-Secretary, or rather those who advise him, must have a list of the local authorities that are not doing all the excellent stuff referred to in the clause. We surely have a right to know.

John Hayes: I asked the Under-Secretary to break down the figures for young people’s participation in sport. We need him to do that so that we can to get to the bottom of my hon. Friend’s point. It is not enough to say that young people are doing sport or physical education; it is important that we know what kind and what quality it is. Let me just tell my hon. Friend—

Christopher Chope: Order. I think that that is long enough for an intervention.

Edward Leigh: That is a pity because my hon. Friend’s intervention was fuelled by gargantuan teas, lunches and much else. Of course, I cannot afford tea at the Savoy because I have all these children. Anyway, I think that I have made my point. Let us name and shame the local authorities that are not doing what is set out in the clause.

Nadine Dorries: Let me mention the state school that my daughter attends. The average house price in the area is quite high and there are a lots of middle-class parents. The school partakes in an amazing array of sports. Indeed, my daughter amazed me last night when she asked where her swimming costume because she was doing synchronised swimming today, although it is debatable whether that is a sport. Does my hon. Friend agree, however, that the clause should concentrate on areas where there are state schools, but where parents are not so affluent, motivated or energised? Similar schools in areas with motivated middle-class families and high average house prices would probably do quite well.

Edward Leigh: I am sure that there must be something in that. Presumably, it cannot be a matter of resources. The Under-Secretary will correct me if I am wrong, but the same resources presumably go into a school whether it is in a deprived area or a middle-class area, so it cannot be a question of resources. Why are some schools underperforming? Is the problem the fact that the onus is put on the parents, some of whom simply cannot afford to encourage their children to partake in these extra-curricular activities? [Interruption.] I see that my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) is pregnant with advice.

John Hayes: I want to finish my earlier intervention. We need to get the issue in perspective. Most people who represent England at international level are not public school boys and girls, are they? How many of our national soccer team or top athletes went to a private school? There is a lot of nonsense talked about these things. There are some good state schools doing some very good sport. We now need to ensure that all state schools do good sport.

Edward Leigh: There may be a lot of truth in that. I suspect that it varies from sport to sport. It would be interesting to know where a lot of our Olympic medallists were educated—whether at state or private schools. Anyway, we await the Minister’s comments with interest.

Phil Hope: As we debate the clauses dealing with young people, looking around the Committee I am remind of the words of Eleanor Roosevelt, who said:
“Beautiful young people are accidents of nature, but beautiful old people are works of art.”
We have both on this Committee, and hon. Members can decide which category they belong to.
Before addressing points made by Committee members, which have ranged fairly far and wide given the nature of the clause, I should like to take a moment to introduce the clause and explain its importance to young people and local communities. In essence, it will ensure that young people are able to access constructive things to do and places to go in their leisure time. We know—we have heard testimony about it this afternoon—that participation in constructive leisure activities, such as playing sport and joining groups and taking part in cultural activities, including art, music, drama, and all the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North and others, are vital. They offer young people lasting benefits, including, as my hon. Friend said, improved health, the chance to develop their skills, as the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings said, as well as personal confidence and social development.
The clause is so important because six out of 10 young people and 8 out of 10 parents believe that there are not enough of these activities in the area in which they live. For some young people, the result of such a lack of activity is not just the personal cost of missing out on voluntary learning opportunities: the absence of things to do and places to go also leads to boredom and, inevitably, to nuisance. Given the comments of Committee members, it is interesting to note that 70 per cent. of young people believe that a lack of provision leads to more youth crime. Young people’s opinions are supported by evidence that being involved in positive activities helps prevent teenagers from being drawn into antisocial behaviour and crime, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North and the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton said.

Andrew Gwynne: Is it not also the case in respect of antisocial behaviour that people’s general tolerance levels have also changed? Whereas a few years ago people accepted children and young people playing ball games on grass verges outside houses, now they do not, and that raises the need to open up sports facilities to the general public outside school times.

Phil Hope: My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is interesting that in the British crime survey 49 per cent. of people in deprived areas identified teenagers hanging around on the street as a problem, reinforcing my hon. Friend’s point, which is that our attitudes have changed and work needs to be done.

Sarah Teather: To add to the point made by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), the Football Association raised a particular concern about the rise in the number of “no ball games” signs in estates. That point was made by another hon. Member earlier. There needs to be far more consultation, when setting up estates, to ensure that there are defined areas where young people can play ball games, because the FA identified that as a particular problem in encouraging people to take part in football.

Phil Hope: The hon. Lady is right. Indeed, the clause is partly about putting a duty on local authorities to consider the needs and provision locally and find ways to meet those needs. Perhaps local authorities might want to look at such things as the point that she has just made when considering the facilities available for young people.
I want to emphasise how young people and hon. Members think that engagement in such activities helps reduce antisocial behaviour. My hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham made the important point that it is also about positively engaging young people, not just to reduce their antisocial behaviour but to promote positive behaviour—I believe that active citizenship was mentioned earlier.

John Hayes: Further to the hon. Gentleman’s point about the duty on local authorities, it is about ensuring adequate public space, as the hon. Member for Brent, East pointed out, but is it not also about the way we build houses and gardens? In our proper understanding of the need for more affordable housing, we are building a number of houses without gardens even when children are located in that area and would want to play in gardens. That is partly why children are spending less time engaged in the activities that he and I engaged in with our friends—in my case in the ‘60s and in his case earlier, I would guess.

Phil Hope: I would not like to guess the sport that the hon. Gentleman participated in when he was at school—perhaps it was draughts or chess. We are ranging wide across the piece when we start to think about designing out crime when we develop houses, local estates and so on. In my former role as a Minister in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, I did a great deal on the issue of creating communities that are cleaner, safer and greener, and I am pleased to say that there are huge extra resources, particularly in the most disadvantaged areas, to ensure that that is the case. In other words, communities that help in such a way are being designed. However, those points are not covered by clause 6 so I will not stray too far from the task before us.
Why do not many young people participate in the activities that we are describing? We know that young people experience a variety of barriers in accessing positive activities. Although sufficient provision is essential to participation, other factors such as a lack of information about what is available or the unsuitability of the provision are often the reasons behind young people’s non-participation.
We know that young people wish to do more. Some 19,000 young people responded to the Department’s recent consultation on the Green Paper, “Youth Matters”, a huge response reflecting the importance that we place on the matter. Of those young respondents, 71 per cent. said that they would do up to four hours of activities, including sport, in their spare time each week if they had the opportunity. Those figures and the sheer volume of young people who responded to the consultation attest to the importance that young people, as well as members of the Committee, attach to the matter.
I was pleased to hear that my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham carried out her own consultation with young people. I dare say that other members of the Committee and Members of Parliament should follow her example and go out and talk to young people and listen to their views, so that they can play their part as MPs in responding to the needs of young people.
By giving strategic responsibility to local authorities to ensure that young people have access to sufficient provision, clause 6 will ensure that a single responsible body will review access and act as commissioner, facilitator and, where appropriate, provider to ensure that young people can benefit from participation in positive leisure time activities.
The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton mentioned the youth opportunities card; the clause is wide enough to embrace that. He is right to say that it is being piloted and that we will consider the outcomes of those pilots before we go forward. The legislation will allow the youth opportunities card to be delivered by local authorities if they wish to use that mechanism.

Annette Brooke: I want to ask a question about the potential for local authorities to charge and perhaps swallow up the youth opportunities card. There are two references in the clause where the expense may be defrayed or financial assistance may be given, but they are imprecise. Will there be any guidance about not setting high prices that would take such worthy activities out of the range of many of our most deserving young people?

Phil Hope: There will be guidance and, indeed, some illustrative descriptions of what the guidance will cover will include that. Lack of finance can be a barrier for some young people, particularly those from low-income families, so it is important that when a local authority conducts an assessment of the needs of young people and their access to activities, they take into account potential financial barriers. I shall say more about barriers when I come on to disability, but there are barriers of that kind and it is up to local authorities to ensure that financial barriers do not prevent young people from accessing the sort of facilities and recreational opportunities listed in the clause.
The clause ensures that young people are themselves central to the fulfilment of the new duty. It requires that local authorities establish young people’s views on the current provision of positive activities, their access to it, and the need for any additional activities and facilities. It also requires that authorities take into account young people’s views. Local authorities will need to consult young people and take into account their views on positive activities.
I emphasise that the legislation will be supported by the youth opportunities and youth capital funds that have been mentioned already, and which will be worth some £115 million over the next two years. Both funds will be youth led, support the engagement of young people in decision making, and be an important additional resource to help to achieve the intended outcomes of the new provisions. It is important that local authorities take into account young people’s views, which will be critical in ensuring that the provision made is of interest to and meets the needs of young people. In turn that will result in increased participation by young people.
To tackle the lack of information on existing provision the clause requires that local authorities publicise appropriate positive activities and facilities available locally to young people. Guidance issued under the clause, to which local authorities will need to have regard, will clarify how that can be achieved to greatest effect, and will address the information needs of specific groups such as disabled young people.
For too long, parents in this country have complained that their local area provides nothing for their kids to do. That is what I hear on doorsteps in my constituency, and I am sure that it is replicated across the country. Young people want things to do and local communities want young people to engage in positive activities. For those reasons I believe that the duty contained in the clause will be fulfilled with vigour at local level.
The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) raised an issue regarding sport. Will the clause make any difference? I believe that young people and local communities will demand that local authorities respond to their duty to secure access to such activities. That will be a major driver, led by young people and the communities themselves, in the delivery of those activities.

John Hayes: The hon. Gentleman might be right to say that young people want things to do, but he will know that in the last 15 years almost half of the UK’s playing fields have disappeared. Many of our conurbations and cities are becoming increasingly grey. It is okay to say that young people have the will to do such things, but unless there is the opportunity they will not be able to fulfil that will.

Phil Hope: Perhaps that will give me the opportunity to respond to some of the points that the hon. Gentleman and others have made about participation in sport and the availability of public playing fields, although I hope not to stray far from the clause.
The Government are firmly committed to competitive school sport. Learning competitive games such as football and hockey is compulsory at all key stages, and the percentage of young people taking part in competitive sport has been rising steadily year on year. We have introduced new measures to successfully promote participation in competitive sport. I have some figures for the hon. Gentleman. Competitive sports such as football, hockey and athletics remain popular and are offered by almost all schools. For example, 97 per cent. of schools offer football, 91 per cent. athletics, 85 per cent. cricket, 81 per cent. netball, 82 per cent. rugby, 74 per cent. hockey and 71 per cent. tennis. That is a high percentage of schools offering exactly the kind of competitive school sports to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned inter-school sporting competition. In partnerships that we developed in 2003-04 the level of participation has risen from 33 per cent. to 36 per cent. I am pleased to say that the figure is going up. In a typical week, a quarter of pupils in partnership schools are involved in inter-school competitive activities. That percentage has risen from 22 to 28 per cent., an increase of six percentage points. There has been a welcome growth in participation in competitive sport.
The subject of playing fields has come up on a number of occasions. I shall briefly mention some facts.

John Hayes: I want to be absolutely clear on the figures that the hon. Gentleman just offered us, because they are important in the terms established by the hon. Member for Bury, North. The Under-Secretary will correct me if I am wrong, but I think that he is telling us that 28 per cent. of schools, up from 22 per cent., are involved in inter-school competitions. Is that right? He then gave us another figure of 36 per cent. I did not understand the difference between those two. Will he clarify it? Whatever the clarification, however, it seems to me—

Christopher Chope: Order. Let us wait for the clarification.

Phil Hope: The figures are for partnership schools in which participation has taken place. I was talking about pupils, not schools.
I should like to make it clear that the Government are investing some £978 million between 2003-04 and 2007-08 to deliver the PE, school sport and club links strategy, which aims to increase young people’s take-up of sporting opportunities. As for the figures on partnership school pupils taking part, the 2004-05 school sport survey found that 69 per cent. of pupils in partnership schools spent at least two hours in a typical week on high-quality PE and school sport. With the addition of the lottery funding that is enhancing school facilities, some £1.5 billion will have been invested in school sport during the five years up to 2008. By any standards, that is a remarkable achievement in promoting school sport.

Angela Smith: I wonder whether this is the right point to pay tribute to our right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport, who has been instrumental in securing much of that investment, which will facilitate the implementation of the duties laid down in clause 6.

Phil Hope: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight our right hon. Friend’s contribution. We can be proud not only of the new duty, which will improve facilities and access for young people, but of the wider opportunities for participation both in and out of school in a wide range of sporting and cultural activities.

John Hayes: The Under-Secretary has been extremely clear about the kind of sports that young people are involved in—he gave us a comprehensive breakdown of figures for each sport that he listed—but I am still not quite clear about how many schools and how many pupils, in percentage terms, are involved in competitive sport. He has spoken about different percentages and different types of schools. Can we have a clear answer on how many schools are competing against one another, and what percentage of pupils is involved? If he cannot give me that clear answer, perhaps he could come back to me.

Phil Hope: I shall try again. If this does not satisfy the hon. Gentleman, I will write to him.
I listed the percentage of schools offering each sport. I thought that that was a helpful contribution. In the context of the sporting partnerships that are being developed, I mentioned that 35 per cent. of pupils in those partnership schools were involved in some form of inter-school sporting competition. Well over a third are involved in some kind of sporting competition.
Questions have been asked about school playing fields. Section 77 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 delivered our commitment to ending the policy of forcing schools to sell off playing fields. Since then, all local authorities and governing bodies of maintained schools in England have needed the Secretary of State’s consent to dispose of a school playing field or any part of one. Since 2004, the assessment criteria have been strengthened so that the sale of a playing field is an absolute last resort. Local authorities must demonstrate that they have exhausted all other sources of funding. When possible, sale proceeds must be used to improve outdoor sports facilities, and any new sports facilities must be sustainable for at least 10 years. I am pleased to say that the number of applications for disposal has shown a steady decline since the Government introduced that policy. In 1998-99, there were 41 applications; by 2005-06 the number had fallen to 17, which demonstrates that we have made significant inroads into the legacy of a flawed policy That has made a real difference by ensuring that young people have the opportunities, and the necessary access when theyneed it.

Andrew Gwynne: May I give my hon. Friend an example of best practice in my constituency in Labour-controlled Tameside? A major retail development was proposed in Denton town centre that involved the removal of a slice of the school playing field at Edgerton park arts college. Not only did the school secure financial compensation for the loss of the playing field, which it reinvested in a multipurpose floodlit sports pitch for the community, but it received replacement land attached to the playing field of exactly the same size as it lost. It was win-win for the school and the community.

Phil Hope: That is an excellent example of a local authority delivering what we require: it delivered better facilities for young people rather than ignoring the opportunity to meet those needs.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North and others mentioned swimming. I remind the Committee that swimming has always been a compulsory element of the PE national curriculum, and unless completed at key stage 1 swimming and water safety activities are statutory at key stage 2. I can tell the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings—I know that he likes interesting facts—that in 2000 an Ofsted report on swimming at key stage 2 found that 83 per cent. of pupils could swim the 25 m standard. We think that the figure could still be improved. An advisory group was set up and a pilot programme was carried out. As a result of the success of that pilot, and with a positive consultation, we intend to implement a national programme, with £5.5 million being allocated to support what is known as a swimming charter between April 2006 and March 2008.

Nick Gibb: Will the Minister confirm that 69 per cent. of pupils are spending two hours or more on high-quality PE and games, or did that figure relate to a special kind of school? If the latter, could he give the overall figure of the proportion who spend two hours on PE and games?

Phil Hope: The figure that I read out is correct. The 2004-05 school sports survey said that 69 per cent.—the figure is up by 7 percentage points on the previous year—of pupils in partnership schools were spending at least two hours in a typical week on high-quality PE and school sport. As we are drifting into territory not covered by the clause, I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman with the other information that he has asked me to provide, if wehave it.
I turn to the amendments. Clause 6 contains two new sections applying only to England that are to be inserted into the Education Act 1996. Proposed new section 507A is a re-enactment of the existing section 508 of the 1996 Act in its application to children under the age of 13. Proposed new section 507B is a new provision that replaces the LEAs’ existing functions under section 508 of the 1996 Act with regard to young people over the age of 13. The two new sections deal with two age groups. It is important to note that the majority of the amendments would change new section 507A; they would therefore amend existing provisions. Local authorities already fulfil that duty; we are re-enacting it. The amendments would change that.
Amendments Nos. 183, 184 and 185 would amend the wording of the provision to require that local authorities secure “sufficient” rather than “adequate” facilities for children’s recreation and social and physical training. In the context of clause 6, we believe that “adequate” provides a more challenging duty. In order to secure “adequate” provision, local authorities would need to have regard to the quality as well as the quantity of its provision, but the amendments would risk communicating to local authorities that in fulfilling the provisions of new section 507A they need consider only the scale of provision without taking into account its quality. I do not think that that is what my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North intends.
It is also worth noting that the new section is based on the provisions of section 508 of the 1996 Act, and that LEAs are already clear as to the meaning of “adequate” in that context because they have been fulfilling the duty for some time. In addition, existing section 508 will continue in respect of local authorities in Wales. Those authorities continue to be required to ensure that there are adequate facilities and so on. Any difference between the wording of section 508 and the new section 507A will create doubt as to the extent of the LEAs’ functions under these provisions.
It is not necessary to require that the duty be fulfilled “according to their needs”, as the amendment would do. As I have explained, the new section imposes a duty on LEAs to ensure that there are adequate facilities. LEAs are already under a duty to secure primary and secondary education for their areas that are appropriate to the needs of their pupils, so it would be inappropriate to impose an additional burden on them in respect of that aspect of their primary and secondary education provision.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North made an important point, and I want to assure him that in fulfilling the duty, local authorities will have to consider the needs of the child population, and of specific groups of children. That will include the consideration that is given to recreation and social and physical training facilities as part of the analysis that is undertaken by local authorities and their partners in respect of children’s trusts, as set out in the children and young people’s plan. For the reasons that I have outlined, I hope that my hon. Friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Amendments Nos. 149 and 64 seek to enable authorities to form partnerships with other organisations to secure adequate facilities for children’s recreation and social and physical training. I appreciate the intentions behind the amendment, and I agree that local authorities should consider co-operating with other organisations in fulfilling the duty, but I do not think that the amendment is necessary. Subsection (2)(a) of new section 507A makes it clear that the local authority may
“assist the establishment, maintenance and management of”
provision, thereby supporting the actions of others as part of a partnership. In addition, subsection (3) requires local authorities to consider
“co-operating with any voluntary societies or bodies”
that provide or organise similar activities.
We have heard many examples of the excellent work done by local voluntary bodies and others in fulfilling those responsibilities. Local authorities already operate in a new environment, following the “Every Child Matters” reforms and the framework that was established by the Children Act 2004. Those require greater partnership working, and for local authorities to plan and commission with other bodies within local children’s trusts arrangements. I am pleased to say that that approach is now firmly embedded around the country, and it is supported by a joint planning and commissioning framework for children, young people and maternity services, set out by the Department for Education and Skills and the Department of Health.
Within that framework, local authorities are developing a more strategic approach to planning and commissioning. That includes making sure that suppliers and providers are encouraged to develop innovative approaches to delivering services and achieving outcomes. Section 507A provides significant flexibility to local authorities in their approach to securing provision, and that includes their ability to enter into partnerships with other organisations, which we know can be successful. I hope that the hon. Member for Brent, East will not press the amendments, because they are unnecessary, although they have provided a helpful opportunity for us to welcome the contribution that voluntary organisations and others make towards the provision of services for young people.
Amendment No. 236 would include a specific reference to field centres as one of the facilities that authorities may establish, maintain or manage, or may assist others in establishing, maintaining or managing as part of their local provision. Committee members who were unaware of the benefits of field centres heard some of them articulated here this afternoon. They offer young people important opportunities to participate in outdoor education, often concentrating on the natural sciences, the physical sciences and environmental education. Depending on the centre, they might also offer activities aimed at personal and social development, such as outdoor pursuits.
In my previous life, I took many young people away on such trips, both as a teacher and as a youth worker. I am sure that other hon. Members have done the same. We all know the benefits that such activities provide, as the examples given by my hon. Friends the Members for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) and for Sheffield, Hillsborough demonstrate. I am also aware that there are many disaffected young people; that kind of learning provides opportunities that can help to re-engage them with mainstream education.
Not all the activities provided by field centres are likely to fall within the concept of recreational, social and physical training as identified in new section 507A, although in many cases they will. It would be reasonable for a local authority to use field centres to provide certain services as part of the fulfilment of its duty under subsection (1). However, the list of activities and facilities referred to in subsection (2)(a)(i) is indicative, not exclusive. We should not seek to name in subsection (2) all the excellent facilities that authorities may seek to provide or support. The subsection already provides local authorities with significant flexibility on the type of facility that could be employed in the fulfilment of the duty. For example, outdoor education centres could be used; the list of the types of centres that might be appropriate could go on and on.
The Department and a range of organisations are undertaking a wide range of work to ensure that all children and young people have a variety of high-quality learning opportunities away from their classrooms, but as part of their lessons. We aim to publish a manifesto for education outside the classroom that will seek to create a joint undertaking through which providers, voluntary organisations, youth groups, schools and local authorities will work together to make what are often unique experiences a reality for all children.
That manifesto is yet to be published, although a draft of its vision and aims is on the DFES website. The issue is subject to a lot of consultation at the moment. I am confident that the manifesto will communicate adequately the message that my hon. Friends seek to pass to local authorities—the message that field centres are important. The manifesto will also help field centres to work together more effectively to deliver improved services to schools and increase teachers’ confidence in taking children out of the classroom. I ask my hon. Friends to consider not pressing the amendment. It is necessary neither in the legal sense, nor, because of the work being done on the manifesto, as a means of communicating the importance of field centres.
I have been speaking about provision for children up to the age of 13; the amendments that I was discussing related to new section 507A. I now turn to new section 507B. As I said, it was first proposed in the Green Paper “Youth Matters”. We think it central to ensuring that young people have things to do and places to go to during their leisure time. I emphasise that positive activities include any leisure time activity connected to recreation or education that improves young people’s well-being. They include sport and cultural activities as well as youth work, which will be essential to the delivery of many of the positive activities in which we want young people to engage, and to empowering young people to access and influence the nature of the provision.
As we have been reminded, such activities are provided by a wide variety of bodies across the public, private and voluntary sectors. The duty under new section 507B reflects that. However, local authorities will be an important source of positive activities, both as providers and, increasingly, as commissioners of services. For example, a significant youth work contribution from the local authority will be central to the fulfilment of the new duty to secure young people access to sufficient positive leisure time activities. In fulfilling the new duty, local authorities will need to consider whether their current youth work contribution is appropriate, following consultation with local young people.
I turn to amendment No. 150, which concerns disabled young people. We are sympathetic to its intentions; it is vital that young people with disabilities should be able to access the positive leisure time activities that the clause seeks to ensure for all young people. It is also true that young people with disabilities often face additional barriers, and the clause has been written with such young people in mind.
Young people with disabilities are already included in the duty on securing access to sufficient positive leisure time activities. The authority will have to take into account its responsibilities under the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 to promote equality of opportunity for disabled people. However, it is important to recognise that many other groups of young people could be mentioned in the Bill. They also face barriers to participation; they could be physical, cultural, social or—as the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) mentioned—economic. We believe that local authorities should determine the relative needs of each group in their area, and also the actions they should take following local assessment and within the planning and commissioning process led by the Children’s Trust. Section 17 of the Children Act 2004 requires local authorities to work with other partners to produce a children and young people’s plan, and the need of disabled young people to access positive leisure time activities should be included in that plan.
I emphasise that proposed new section 507B(8)(a) requires the local authority to consult young people and to take their views into account. That consultation will inform the local authority’s planning. Statutory guidance issued under that new section will make clear the expectation that the local authority should consult and consider the needs of disabled young people. That is vital, and it will be stated in statutory guidance.
Finally on this point, subsection (9) of the proposed new section requires local authorities to
“publicise information about positive leisure-time activities, and facilities”
to young people. The provision of information on those activities is vital for young people with disabilities, who have additional information requirements. The National Youth Agency has advised the Department on how the requirement can best be fulfilled, and we will set out in guidance that the information requirements of disabled young people should be clearly addressed.
I hope that I have reassured Members that not only does the new duty include disabled young people, but that the accompanying statutory guidance will specifically address the needs of disabled young people. On that ground, I request that the amendment will not be pressed to a Division.
Amendment No. 23 raises important questions about funding, and how we expect local authorities to resource any actions they take in fulfilling the new duty. The clause places a duty to secure access to sufficient positive activities and facilities. Some of that provision will be supplied by the authority itself, but, as we have heard, much will be provided by others—for example, extended schools, voluntary sector bodies, or private providers.
Those organisations are not in receipt of the revenue support grant. Therefore, it is not meaningful for the legislation to require their provision to be funded by it. However, even setting aside that legal point and considering only the services provided by the local authority itself, the amendment still fails to offer sufficient flexibility to local authorities with regard to the various funding streams available to them. For example, it would preclude local authorities from making use of local area agreements funding, despite the fact that that contains some £50 million over the next two years that was previously ring-fenced for the “positive activities for young people” programme. It would also prevent local authorities from making use of funding streams that are explicitly designed to help them deliver this duty. I have mentioned the £115 million youth opportunity fund and the youth capital fund. Amendment No. 23 would negate the new power in the clause that allows local authorities to charge, as it would prevent local authorities from using money raised by such charges to offset the costs of provision.
The revenue support grant represents only 6 per cent. of the total external funding received by local authorities from central Government. If we were to restrict the scope of funding in this way, the amendment would require local authorities to severely cut back the provision of leisure time activities and facilities—which, I stress, are often shared by the wider community.
Finally, I remind Opposition Members that the funding restrictions proposed by their amendment would be fundamentally at odds with the increasing discretion accorded to local authorities to judge the best use of their finances, and to be judged according to the outcomes they achieve. Practically speaking, it is also impossible for authorities to identify how much revenue support grant they receive, as that forms an unspecified part of the larger formula grant. Authorities will not therefore know how much they could spend in the fulfilment of this duty. For all those reasons, the amendment is unhelpful, and I invite hon. Members not to press it.
I think I have covered most of the matters Members have raised, including a variety of points about sport, swimming and education outside the classroom, and issues to do with the youth opportunity card. This is an important clause that makes a significant contribution to the Bill and to the provision of services and facilities for young people. I hope that the clause will be supported as an act of cross-party consensus so that we can provide better facilities for young people.

Sarah Teather: This has been a useful discussion and I thank the Under-Secretary for his very positive response to the points that have been raised. Points that were made about our amendments Nos. 149 and 64 were particularly helpful—especially the extra information and constituency experience that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough brought to the debate. In the light of that I shall not press those amendments to a vote.
As to amendment No. 150, I am sympathetic to the Under-Secretary’s point that it is not just disabled young people who face barriers in gaining access to leisure facilities, or, indeed, many services in a local authority area, and his points about cultural differences are particularly apt in the context of my constituency. However, I am also pleased to hear him say that young people with disabilities—particularly learning disabilities—face particular barriers to access. I was reassured by the information that he gave about the issuing of statutory guidance on that matter, and I shall, again, not press the amendment.
In relation to the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole raised about charging, will the Under-Secretary specifically address the issue of children in care when he publishes guidance? That is one particularly vulnerable group whose access to such facilities should be specifically considered.

John Hayes: Two matters have been made less, not more, clear by the Under-Secretary’s response. I do not want to be too pedantic about this, but it is vital to get a clear answer to the question that the hon. Member for Bury, North posed at the beginning of this debate about sport. I hope that the Under-Secretary will also be able to answer my supplementary questions. He was crystal clear, I thought, about the breakdown of sports in which young people are engaged, but he said that 35 per cent. of pupils are involved in inter-school sport at partnership schools. That is a bit of a Sir Humphrey answer, because we do not know which those partnership schools are, or what proportion of the total school population is represented, or where in the country they are distributed.
What we really want to know—what I imagine the hon. Member for Bury, North wants to know, although he will make his own judgment about it—is what proportion of children in all maintained schools spend two hours or more a week on school sport. What I wanted to know was what proportion of children in all maintained schools, whether those are in partnerships or not, are involved in competitive sport or sport that involves a relationship with other schools. Those seem to me pretty straightforward questions, and I should be grateful if the Under-Secretary could answer them so that we could at least agree on that point. I know that he is trying to be helpful; I am trying to be helpful too.

Phil Hope: I hope that I shall be helpful. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that 80 per cent. of schools in England are in a school sport partnership. That gives him some idea of the scale of the response. All schools will be in a partnership by September. At the time of the survey 50 per cent. of schools were in a partnership, so the figures are based on that proportion.

John Hayes: That is helpful, because we now know that 69 per cent. of children in 80 per cent. of schools engage in school sport for more than two hours a week, and that 35 per cent. of children at 80 per cent. of schools engage in sports that involve inter-school work—participating with other schools in competitive or collaborative ventures. I conclude from that that we have a problem, because a lot of children are not involved in physical education or sport for two hours or more a week. That suggests that a large number of children engage in school sport or physical education for a very short time, which underpins the concerns outlined at the beginning of the debate. At least we know where we stand now. I fully acknowledge the Under-Secretary’s desire to do something about that.
This debate has been conducted in a spirit that shows that we are all interested in doing our best by children in respect of physical education and school sports. Following this Committee, I should be interested to take the matter further and to consider how we could measure the trend over time, what difference we could make to the figures, what targets we might set, and what ambitions we might have for ensuring that more children participate. I hope that that will arise from this debate and from the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Bury, North, which have been discussed at some length.
The other matter on which there was lack of clarity was access to playing fields. I want to be as generous as possible: it is true that the Government recognised the problem as early as 1998 and changed the guidance—and, indeed, the legislation—to try to deal with it, as the Minister for Schools will remember. However, the Under-Secretary and the Committee will be aware that the outcome was not entirely happy for the Government. In 1999, there were 590 applications to build on playing fields, but by March 2003 the figure had more than doubled to 1,297 applications per year. It is hard to imagine, is it not? At that time, the then Secretary of State for Education and Skills was asked to decide on 176 applications to dispose of school playing fields that were larger than 0.2 hectares, which is the size of a sports pitch. Of those applications, only two were turned down; so there were only two cases in which the Secretary of State intervened in favour of Sport England’s objection to building on those fields.
The Government recognised the problem and by August 2004, as the Under-Secretary will know, the then Secretary of State announced further protection for playing fields, because he recognised that, as a study conducted by University college London revealed—that is where I have drawn my figures from—there was a big problem in terms of school playing fields. I would be interested to hear from the Under-Secretary what the position has been since 2004, as we have not heard that today. We would hope that the series of tighter measures introduced by the then Secretary of State—now the Home Secretary—had to some degree stemmed the tide of building on playing fields, but I have not seen any figures to date or, indeed, today.
It is important for the Under-Secretary to reassure those Committee members who have expressed an absolute determination that sports should be given a prominent position, both in school and outside the school gate, that that sale of open space has not continued unabated. I do not think that it has, and I am sure that the Under-Secretary does not think so, but let us have the facts and figures before us so that we can make a judgment. Once again, this has been a helpful debate. I repeat my thanks to the hon. Member for Bury, North, for giving us the chance to hold it.

Nick Gibb: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s dogged tenacity in extracting those important figures from the Under-Secretary; they reveal that there is a problem. Even in the partnership schools, a large proportion of pupils—the Under-Secretary said 31 per cent.—are not getting two hours a week or more of high-quality PE or games. We have a problem that we need to address together, as a Government and as a Parliament.
The debate has been interesting. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough, is right that the duty does not necessarily require local authorities to provide the recreation facilities themselves; they can commission the voluntary and private sectors and other bodies to provide those facilities. It was refreshing and encouraging to hear that from a Labour Member, and even more so to hear it from her. I think that the Committee is reaching consensus on some important points of principle.
I am grateful for the Under-Secretary’s full and informative response. He pointed out that 70 per cent. of young people believe that lack of provision leads to antisocial behaviour and crime. Again, there is consensus in the Committee on that point, which was first raised by the hon. Member for Bury, North. I think that the Under-Secretary confirmed my understanding that the funding for the new duty comes principally from the youth opportunity fund, although he also mentioned local area agreements and other sources of funding to which local authorities have access. From what he said, however, I understand that the fund is the principal source of funding. That was a helpful note of confirmation.

Phil Hope: I do not want the hon. Gentleman or the Committee to be misled. Local authorities have a duty to secure access as I described, but they should not use the youth opportunity fund, which is there to help to engage young people and ensure that they are involved in decision making regarding needs assessments and in giving their views about existing provision.

Nick Gibb: I am grateful for that clarification. We support the clause, but that explanation demonstrates the general problem with what we do in this House. When we impose duties on local authorities without providing funding to discharge them, they have a problem: they must either raise council tax to fund the new duties or divert resources from other services. Our amendment is only a probing one, but discussions on it have revealed a problem faced by local authorities. Too often, we pass laws without thinking through the consequences that new duties and facilities will have on those who have to discharge and provide them, or how they will be funded. We have to take a serious approach.
We want many things from our public services—I reiterate that we support clause 6—but we have to be serious about the problem of introducing legislation and imposing new duties and responsibilities on local authorities and leaving the funding of those new duties to them. Sometimes there is a disconnect between the elected representatives who impose duties and the elected representatives who have to raise money from the public to pay for new services. We have had a revealing and informative debate on our probing amendment, and I do not intend to press it to a Division.

David Chaytor: I thank my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for his long and detailed response to the amendments. It should give us food for thought that had the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings not taken tea at the Savoy, we might not have had the opportunity to explore these detailed issues, and might already have been well into our discussions on clause 7 and the Secretary of State’s veto, but that is a side issue. I am pleased that the brief amendments in the group have opened a debate on a clause that might otherwise have been unfairly neglected.
I have two brief points to make. First, the Under-Secretary has described an impressive level of commitment and achievement in encouraging school sport, in particular, and a stronger focus on education outside the classroom. I very much support the imminent publication of the manifesto on education outside the classroom. With legislative support for local authorities, we can look forward to further advances in that area, but the existence of sporting and other cultural facilities alone will not automatically develop the wider levels of participation that we all want. We must reinforce the argument that we need a coherent approach. On one hand, there should be a strong role for local authorities in providing or commissioning new facilities. On the other, we need stronger encouragement for schools to place far more emphasis on the importance of sport and cultural activities in the curriculum.
This is a debate for another occasion, but it is important to flag this point up now. I fear that the constricting effect of the national curriculum in recent years has had an adverse effect, whereby in subjects such as sport, dance, drama, art and music, some activities that do not contribute directly to a school’s record of achievement as defined by GCSE results have been squeezed out of the curriculum. I know that the Government have recognised that and are taking steps to free up the national curriculum and gradually reduce the burden of assessment that the national curriculum has triggered. However, that process must continue if we are to see the full flourishing of sport and the arts in our schools. Although many youngsters in surveys say that they want to spend more time on such activities during the week, they need guidance from an adult in a school setting because the capacity creatively to use leisure time does not come about by chance—it is taught, encouraged and facilitated, and we need time in the school day to do that.
My second brief point is that the hon. Member for Gainsborough, who is not in his place, drew attention to the sometimes substantial differential between sports facilities in private and state schools. I do not want to over-emphasise that point, because it is not true in all circumstances, but it is true in many. I simply flag up the question of whether the Charities Bill, which is wending its way through the other place and which grapples with the public interest criteria for continuing the VAT exemption for private schools, might provide a way of reducing that differential, which all members of the Committee see as unacceptable. However, that is a debate for the other place, and with those few words, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

New Clause 2

Education of children detained under an order of court
‘(1) Chapter 5 of Part 10 of EA 1996 (Persons not covered by the Act) shall be amended as follows.
(2) Leave out section 562 (Act not apply to persons detained under order of a court).'. —[Annette Brooke.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Annette Brooke: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Christopher Chope: With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 3—Education of children in immigration removal centres—
‘When a local authority has within its boundaries an Immigration Removal Centre it shall ensure that all duties and powers pertaining to education of children are applied to any child resident within an Immigration Removal Centre.'.

Annette Brooke: When we discuss children in custody or asylum seekers’ children in detention centres, we talk much about “Every Child Matters”. I often feel, however, that those two groups are excluded in many ways, so the two new clauses are important in the context of education. There have been had long debates and, indeed, High Court cases about the position of social services as regards children in custody, but education is the topic today.
I turn first to new clause 2. On 31 March 2005, 2,204 15 to 17-year-olds were in prison and 234 12 to 15-year-olds were in privately run secure training centres. As we are all aware, many children in prison have a background of severe social exclusion. Of those of school age in custody, more than a quarter have the literacy and numeracy levels of an average 7-year-old. Sadly, more than half of those under-18-year-olds have a history of care into the bargain. In young offenders institutions, just under a third of the population has basic skills deficits, while the reading ability of 48 per cent. of the overall prison population is at or below level 1, compared with 21 to 23 per cent. in the general population.
Education is important because it gives us the opportunity to put an end to that revolving door syndrome. Otherwise, the problem builds up, with that basic lack of literacy and numeracy still showing itself in the adult population and making some contribution to reoffending.

Nick Gibb: I am listening with interest to hon. Lady and I am sure that I will agree with almost everything that she says. What is interesting and alarming, however, is that 23 per cent. of the general population are not at the required reading level. That is the real figure to worry about. Of that group, a large chunk will go on to commit crime. Although I am unlikely to disagree with the hon. Lady’s conclusions, should we not focus on dealing with that 23 per cent. illiteracy rate?

Annette Brooke: I am concerned about the education of all children and all adults. Obviously, I am concentrating on new clauses, because by not covering education for children in custody the Bill has a deficit.
New clause 2 seeks to address that deficit. I understand that section 562 of the Education Act 1996 effectively permits the Secretary of State, local education authorities and parents to opt out of any obligations under the Act if the child is detained by the order of a court, although the LEA may make arrangements for such a child to receive the benefit of educational facilities provided by it.
I do not apologise for referring yet again to the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child. The UK’s second report to that Committee said that it was particularly concerned that children deprived of their liberty in prisons and juvenile detention centres do not have a statutory right to education, that their education is not the responsibility of the Departments responsible for education, and that they do not have support for special educational needs. I am sure that Opposition Members will be particularly supportive of this special educational needs aspect, which is heightened, yet again, among children in custody.
Prison Service order 4950 stipulates the requirements for prisons holding children. It specifies that education should be provided for all young people under school-leaving age for at least 15 hours a week but the remaining 15 hours of constructive activity that are not spent in education must be spent in accredited educative activities, which may include work-based learning. That is in line with the requirements of the Youth Justice Board with whose work much progress has been made. However, according to the chief inspector of prisons, in 2004, no juvenile establishment had yet succeeded in meeting the target of 30 hours per week in education and training.
I have further concerns relating to an answer provided by the Under-Secretary to a parliamentary question in July last year. It did not answer the question but it provided me with some useful material for today, for which I am grateful. A table shows the weekly average number of hours of education and physical education undertaken by 15, 16 and 17-year-olds at each young offender and juvenile establishment in 2004-05. On average, each institution provided just eight hours of education per child per week. If every child matters, surely we must do something about that. The situation needs to be addressed and it should not be omitted from the Bill.
A further point, raised by youth offender teams, is that when a child or young person is released from custody, it is difficult to reintegrate them into full-time education. It might take time to find a placement and there are gaps, all of which adds to the severe problems. Surely education in a secure estate should not mirror that provided in the main community; it should be better than that. Children in a secure estate often have been failed by mainstream education, and custody presents a valuable opportunity to make up some of those deficits. Why do we not make them up? I hope that we can establish a statutory right to education for children in custody and feel that we have made a great contribution, perhaps not in terms of large numbers but in the impact on the individuals involved and on society.
New clause 3 is, in many ways, designed to probe whether the duties placed on local authorities under the 1996 Act apply to children in immigration removal centres. This is a difficult issue, but what emerges time and again from inspections of such centres is that the provision for children’s education is unsatisfactory and depressing. A March 2005 report on Yarl’s Wood said:
“Accommodation for older children was poor, and the broad range of ages and abilities prevented effective work. There was an over-reliance on agency staff, insufficient resources and no system to measure the quality, rather than the amount, of teaching. Three children had been removed from school just before GCSE examinations, to the great detriment of their education.”
A report from Amnesty International has a case study repeating that important point. Jean
“was kept in detention with her son pending the granting of a travel document by the authorities of her country. Her son, who is of school age, received little education at Oakington. He had been assessed by an educational psychologist prior to being taken into detention after concern had been raised about his disturbed behaviour at school. No further steps had been taken because he stopped attending school as a result of being taken into detention.”
As a consequence, we have stoked up a large range of problems for that child.
The Amnesty International report also made the point that during detention children have a right to education, which should optimally take place outside the detention premises to facilitate the continuation of their education upon release. A September 2004-August 2005 report from Her Majesty’s inspector of prisons reiterates that point:
“M, aged 16, had been at his local college since 2001.”
At the time of his detention, he was
“due to sit his GCSE examinations imminently. Both he and his 13-year-old brother, removed from the school at the same time, had excellent records of school performance, attendance and behaviour.”
The college believed that his education
“had been seriously affected by his removal at such a critical stage.”
I am pleased to say that the family was released from detention after inspectors raised the case, but obviously inspectors cannot go in day in and day out.
That report makes the point that
“the quality and range of education provision for children also caused concern. Resources to support teaching were generally inadequate.”
The same point comes up over and over, but what are we doing to improve things? Teachers work hard to deal with groups that are very mixed in language needs, age and ability. In one establishment, one small, cramped classroom accommodated 12 young people aged between 5 and 17. That is what we currently provide. Save the Children’s report makes a further relevant point that we encounter in surgery cases: children whose age is disputed are treated as adults. That has a knock-on effect for education.
I have spoken at great length. I normally speak briefly in Committee, but these are such important and serious points. Both groups are in danger of being overlooked. There is evidence that education is not being provided at an adequate level, let alone a compensating one. We should be compensating in both cases. Will the Minister give some assurances that the right of children in immigration removal centres to education is safeguarded by their inclusion in the relevant local authority duties? That is important. If not, what steps could be taken?

John Hayes: I do not intend to detain the Committee by speaking at length. The hon. Lady makes an interesting and powerful point reflecting the argument put forward by the Children’s Society, which has made clear its concerns about children detained under court orders. The hon. Lady will know that local authorities are able to make provisions for educational provision for such children. I hope that the Under-Secretary will tell us of their record for doing so—it would be useful if the Committee had some feel for how local authorities typically behave in that regard—and perhaps give some examples of best practice.
Secondly, the hon. Lady and I—and, incidentally, the Under-Secretary—are concerned about the education of young people in prisons. The Government recently reviewed their position on prison education. The Under-Secretary and I have discussed the matter at length, and he will know that there is a broad measure of consensus between the Government and the Opposition on the need to ensure that those who are detained receive the opportunity to be trained and educated to best effect.
The Under-Secretary will know that one of the big weaknesses of the existing system—the hon. Lady did not mention it, but I know that the omission was not deliberate—is inconsistency in provision. From time to time people are moved around, and having started education of one kind or another, they have it broken or disturbed by such moves. I speak of people in custody, so there may be considerable disruption both in the course that they are studying and in the person who is teaching them. I know that the Under-Secretary is aware of this, and I would be interested to hear his views, particularly in respect of the very young to whom the hon. Lady referred.
I would also be interested to hear the Under-Secretary’s perspective on the amount of time for which young people in custody are involved in education and training. Evidence highlighted by the Children’s Society and others suggests that young people in custody receive quite a small amount of education during the day or the week. I wonder why that is and what the Government intend to do about it. 
As for new clause 3, to which the hon. Lady also referred, I fully appreciate that the Government need to retain the power to detain; it is an essential part of protecting the integrity of and public confidence in the immigration controls, which we all believe should be in place. However, if children are involved it is important that their welfare is high on our list of concerns. I want assurances—I am sure that the Under-Secretary will have no trouble in offering them—that all staff working with such children have undergone enhanced criminal record bureau checks, that any other staff are subject to the appropriate checks, and that full training is available to those involved with children and families.
We need a robust system for monitoring the process and for regularly checking whether the circumstances that apply in detention facilities serve such children adequately. I appreciate that the purpose of the centres is short term; we must therefore ensure that there is no perverse incentive for their being anything other than that. We should not put in place things that provide an excuse or an incentive for keeping people for longer than desirable in circumstances that are not ideal. I imagine that there is a fair amount of agreement on that point between the Government and the Opposition.
With what I hope have been helpful questions, and knowing from my discussions with the Under-Secretary that he takes the matter seriously, I welcome the amendments as an opportunity to explore whether the Government have got their act together. The Under-Secretary would not expect anything less, and the Opposition would not let him off the hook if the Government had not got their act together.

Sarah Teather: I shall not detain the Committee long, but merely put on the record my support for the two new clauses moved ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole. Many Committee members will have met similar examples of young people who have moved from care to prison and back to care again, with a consequential disruption to their education. That has a lasting impact on their future life opportunities, but is a notable deficit in the Bill. Opposition Members take that issue seriously and are likely to push the new clause to a vote, although I shall listen to the Minister’s response to the points raised by my hon. Friend.
With respect to new clause 3, I meet many families in my constituency who have to wait for lengthy periods to hear from the Home Office about their asylum cases, and consequentially may have to spend time in detention. Often, those families, and in particular the young people, already have serious psychological barriers preventing them from accessing fully the opportunities that education may provide. Many of them have travelled across the world, and some may have travelled independently of their family—I have met many young people, some aged 11 or 12, who have travelled independently, and whose family may arrive at a later date.
The distress caused to, and the long-term impact on, those young people, who may have lost family members in their country of origin or lost touch with family in the United Kingdom, is enormous. The young people who manage to overcome such barriers and succeed in the school system often have displayed huge courage. I have met many such individuals at schools in my constituency. Of course, they face barriers relating to the English language, as well as disrupted housing provision, particularly if they have moved between housing provided by the National Asylum Support Service, detention and, possibly, private accommodation. It is tremendously difficult for those young people to keep up with their education, so it is particularly important that when they are in detention, education provision is thorough and seeks to meet their needs, which may be considerable because of their difficulties.
In particular, I echo the point that my hon. Friend made about age disputes. It is common for young people, particularly those who have travelled alone, to find that their age is disputed by the Home Office when it is considering their asylum case. That leads to extensive problems in their ability to access education which may have a considerable and long-lasting impact, so that it becomes difficult for them to overcome those problems, even if they eventually win that dispute.

Phil Hope: The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole spoke movingly. Clearly, she is committed to the vulnerable and challenging groups of young people in the systems described in new clauses 2 and 3. That was reflected in the contributions from the hon. Members for South Holland and The Deepings and for Brent, East.
The Government have sympathy with the new clauses. I shall speak first to new clause 2. Each year, an estimated 70,000 school-age offenders enter the youth justice system. I think that we all agree that keeping those young people engaged in education and learning is a critical part of helping them to stay away from crime and to thrive.
There are genuine issues of concern for the 900 or so young offenders under the school-leaving age who are in custody at any one time. The education of young people in custody is delivered to a demanding specification set by the Youth Justice Board, but evidence from Ofsted inspections—the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole herself gave evidence—and the Youth Justice Board’s monitoring reports suggest that delivery in young offender institutions is patchy, particularly with respect to literacy and numeracy.
I shall elaborate slightly on the figures that the hon. Lady quoted from an answer that I gave to a parliamentary question. She is right to say that the figures for 2004-05 suggest that young offenders have received an average of eight hours of education per week. However, that includes young people age 15 to 17, and those aged 18 to 21, because often young offender institutions house both age groups, but separately. So the figure hides the fact that those of school age will have been receiving more education. The fact that there are many more offenders over 18 helps to account for the low average numbers of hours of education per week. The good news, such as it is, is that the Youth Justice Board report for 2004 says that young people under 18 in young offenders institutions were receiving at least 24 hours of education per week, compared with just seven hours in 2002. There has been quite an improvement in the past two or three years.

Annette Brooke: I accept that correction, but would the Minister not agree that there is a deficit in the skills of those 18 to 21-year-olds, so they need more than eight hours per week?

Phil Hope: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. I was dealing with the issue of people under school-leaving age—the 15 to 17-year-olds. Nevertheless, she is right: levels of illiteracy and innumeracy among the prison population aged over 18 are high. To address the point made by the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, a major programme that the hon. Lady will know about—our “skills for life” strategy, launched in 2001, for which I have responsibility—has led to dramatic improvements. I have visited prisons and spoken to older offenders working with other offenders to increase their literacy and numeracy levels. However, there is a huge mountain to climb and it is important that we do that.
I am pleased that some 3.5 million adults took part in “skills for life” courses and that 1.25 million have received their first level 1 qualification since we launched the strategy. I will not go into other figures now, but will try to stick to the new clause. There is a huge need and there is work to do if we are to achieve our goals of reducing illiteracy among the adult population as well as reducing the numbers of young people, with poor levels of literacy and numeracy.
I agree with the hon. Lady that there is a challenge, but there is cross-party support for addressing it. However, simply removing the sections in the Education Act 1996 which disapply the powers and duties that the Act confers on the Secretary of State, local education authorities and parents to anyone detained under the order of a court, as has been proposed, is not the right way forward. A range of detailed duties are already in place to condition the education provided to children detained under an order of court, and those will require substantial unpicking and reconsideration. Simply inserting the new clause will not do that; in fact, it would create inconsistent and, in some cases, conflicting duties for the Youth Justice Board and LEAs.
We addressed the issue clearly in the Green Paper, “Reducing Re-Offending Through Skills and Employment”, published jointly by my Department, the Home Office and the Department for Work and Pensions last December, with which I am sure the hon. Lady and other Opposition Members will be familiar. We acknowledge that there are problems with the current arrangements and we set out clearly as a key priority our commitment to consider the issues affecting school-age offenders and their education. We said that we will involve relevant Departments and agencies in developing a new strategy to develop these issues and that we would publish proposals in the second half of this year. That commitment holds good and it is, I think, a better way of addressing the issues raised than simply accepting the new clause.
We are putting forward a comprehensive proposal that I hope will persuade the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment, knowing that we have an active process under way, with proposals to be published later this year.

John Hayes: I alluded to that document when I spoke. The Minister will recall that the discussion that we had about it highlighted the problem of disrupted provision. Often, people are moved when they are on courses, or their regime or teacher may change, which is particularly critical in respect of the younger people to whom the hon. Lady referred. Will the Minister give us any perspective on that?

Phil Hope: The hon. Gentleman is right. The Green Paper’s proposals are wide-reaching and will have a huge impact throughout not only the prison system, but the probation service and the new National Offender Management Service that is currently being developed. There will be dramatic changes. A thorough educational assessment programme will be carried out at the start for the small proportion of young people who go into custody. On the basis of that initial assessment, young people go through intensive programmes to address the deficits that might well have developed as they have gone out of school and into care or some form of custody.
In 2002, the Youth Justice Board produced the national specification for learning and skills, which requires that the service provided in custody matches that to which young people will be entitled in school or college provision. The new investment that the Youth Justice Board has put into prison education has improved the provision to achieve the change in performance that I have mentioned.
I turn now to new clause 3. We need to recognise the scale of the issues. Of the three immigration removal centres that hold families with children, two hold families for a maximum of 72 hours. One is in Scotland, and so the Bill does not apply to it. The capacity of any local authority to react to the frequent movements into and out of those centres and to provide a personalised learning experience for the children held there is likely to be extremely limited.
The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole referred to the immigration removal centre at Yarl’s Wood. She is right that, where necessary in individual cases, families with children are held there for longer periods. Most will be held for just a few days prior to removal from the UK. As part of the requirements on the operator, the centre provides education based on the national curriculum, which is tailored to the needs of the individual children in the centre. Efforts are made to link the learning provided with that received by the children in the schools they may have attended prior to detention in the centre. The inspectorate of prisons’ inspections of Yarl’s Wood are supported by Ofsted.
To extend local authorities’ duties to the children held in those few immigration removal centres would place a significant burden on a few authorities. The arrangements for providing education in Yarl’s Wood immigration removal centre are established through the contract by which the centre is operated and run. Although the most recent inspection report on the establishment identified some significant areas for improvement, providing an education service specifically tailored for the small but inevitably diverse population of the immigration removal centre through the contract rather than as a small adjunct to a local authority’s general responsibilities remains, I believe, the better way forward.
I assure the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings that of course all staff with access to children have appropriate CRB checks, training and so on, so that they can provide the services that are required. I hope that the new clause will be withdrawn, on that basis.

Annette Brooke: I thank the Minister for his comments on new clause 3. I said clearly that it was a probing clause, because it is difficult to see how to solve the problem when we are still locking up children who have done nothing wrong. It seems to me to be a mistake in our society that we should do that at all. However, I look forward to the next inspector’s report and hope to see those improvements coming forth and achieving results. It is important that MPs continually raise the issues that affect asylum-seeking children, who can be forgotten children.
I accept that the wording of new clause 2 might not be appropriate. However, the principle is so important that we would like to push it to a vote. We do not wish to withdraw the clause, on the premise that there is so much more to be done. We would be failing in our duty if we did not keep highlighting those problems and keeping them at the top of the agenda. It is good to hear that things will improve in some months’ time, but since I became an MP we have said many times, “Things will get better when such and such happens”. We want to make the statement today that the Bill should cover all our children and improve all their educational prospects.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 3, Noes 13.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 7

Invitation for proposals for establishment of new schools

Nick Gibb: I beg to move amendment No. 24, in clause 7, page 6, line 34, at end insert—
‘(1A) A local authority shall publish a notice under subsection (1) in circumstances where 35 per cent or more of school places are in schools that are underperforming.'.

Christopher Chope: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 179, in clause 7, page 6, line 34, at end insert—
‘(1A) A local education authority must publish such a notice if they receive representations from 50 or more parents of qualifying children in connection with the establishment of a foundation, voluntary or foundation special school or an academy.
(1B) In subsection (1A) “qualifying child”, in relation to a local education authority, means any child in the authority's area who is of or under compulsory school age.'.
No. 193, in clause 7, page 6, line 34, at end insert—
‘(1B) In subsection (1A) a maintained school is “underperforming” if, in the previous academic year, it was in the fourth quartile nationally of the value added measure of school performance.'.
No. 25, in clause 7, page 7, line 1, after second ‘a', insert ‘reasonable'.
No. 65, in clause 7, page 7, line 2, at end insert—
‘(ca) specify appropriate qualifications for persons other than local education authorities wishing to establish the new school,'.
No. 27, in clause 7, page 7, line 20, at end insert
‘, such time not to be less than a period of two months,'.

Nick Gibb: Clause 7 is probably the key provision of the Bill; it is certainly the major factor in persuading the Opposition to support it. During his speech on 24 October last year—the day before the publication of the White Paper—the Prime Minister said:
“In our schools, as I shall go on to describe, the system will finally be opened up to real parent power. All schools will be able to have Academy style freedoms. All schools will be able to take on external partners. No one will be able to veto parents starting new schools or new providers coming in, simply on the basis that there are local surplus places. The role of the LEA will change fundamentally.”
In the White Paper itself, the Prime Minister stated:
“While parents can express a choice of school, there are not yet enough good schools in urban areas; such restrictions are greatest for poor and middle class families who cannot afford to opt for private education or to live next to a good school, if they are dissatisfied with what the state offers.”
Many parents are dissatisfied with what the state offers; the recent National Audit Office report into improving schools stated:
“As at July 2005, there were 1,557 poorly performing schools in England, which represented around 4 per cent of primary schools and 23 per cent of secondary schools...We estimate that these 1,557 schools educate around 980,000 pupils, or 13 per cent of the school population.”
The clause has been important in eliciting support from the Opposition, but it is also a major reasonfor Labour rebels’ opposition to the Bill. In their alternative White Paper, “Shaping the Education Bill: Reaching for Consensus”—I wonder how they got on trying to reach that consensus—they state:
“We propose that local authorities be empowered to assess and if necessary refuse or restrain the expansion of schools where this would not be in the overall interests of pupils in their area...Local authorities should retain the power to decide whether to function solely as commissioners, and not providers, of education...The Trust concept must be more fully developed and discussed before it could be enshrined in primary legislation.”
Before Easter, I was accused by the Minister of doing her job for her in citing the draft regulations in support of clause 3. In giving this explanation of the reasons for amendment No. 24, I may be in danger of being accused by the hon. Member for Bury, North—although he voted for the Bill—of doing his job for him. The amendment adds strength to the power of parents by triggering a competition for a new school and inviting proposals in circumstances in which 35 per cent. of school places are in schools that can be regarded as underperforming. I cited the concerns given in the alternative White Paper about what the provisions that became clause 7 do. Despite those concerns, the letter from the Secretary of State to the Chairman of the Education and Skills Committee still makes it clear:
“A key part of the vision set out in the White Paper is that the local authority increasingly acts as a commissioner, rather than a provider, of schools.”
Given the huge majority, as the Minister indicated, that the Bill received on Second Reading, I hope that that remains a key part of the vision. The amendment seeks to strengthen that vision by creating an automatic trigger for a notice to be issued under clause 7 inviting proposals for the establishment of a new school when 35 per cent. of school places are in schools that are underperforming. We defined underperforming schools in amendment No. 193 as those schools that appear in the bottom quartile of a value-added league table.

David Chaytor: Why 35 per cent.?

Nick Gibb: I shall answer that now. This is a probing amendment, and I have not been able to calculate precisely how many local authorities would be forced to issue notices as a result of such a provision. If the figure were 25 per cent. then presumably, given that the definition of underperforming schools in amendment No. 193 is schools in the bottom quartile, most local authorities would be forced to initiate a competition.

James Clappison: My hon. Friend makes a powerful case. Would it not be a shame if we were to tolerate a situation in which there were large numbers of pupils in underperforming schools because we are arguing about numbers and where lines should be drawn? Surely the point is that we are not prepared to put up with large numbers of pupils in such schools.

Nick Gibb: My hon. Friend makes an important point. That is precisely the purpose of this probing amendment. Later amendments are a bit more specific. It was hoped that the choice of 35 per cent. would result in not all local authorities having an automatic trigger, but fewer. I am willing to accept from the hon. Member for Bury, North or from the Minister a different figure—higher or lower—that would achieve the objective of triggering an invitation to propose a new school should too many school places in a local authority area underperform. If that figure is different from 35 per cent., I am sure that the Committee can come to a compromise.
Clause 7 is similar to section 66 of the Education Act 2005, except that this clause applies to all schools, not just secondary schools. However, section 66 has not yet, so far as I know, been implemented. Can the Minister confirm that, and explain why it has not? Can she also reassure the Committee that clause 7 will not languish for years on the statute book without being implemented? Clause 164, the commencement clause, does not seem to include clause 7, which means that it will come into force by order. Can the Minister say when that order will be made?
Amendment No. 24 seeks to strengthen clause 7, assuming that it is implemented, making it more likely that the Bill will achieve the objective set out at page 25 of the White Paper, which says:
“We will encourage all primary schools and secondary schools to be self-governing and to acquire a trust.”
That quotation leads me neatly on to amendment No. 179, which seeks to make it even easier for parents to trigger a competition under clause 7. The current position is that parents need to make representations to the local authority under clause 3, and then the local authority has a duty to consider those representations. Despite all the safeguards set out in the illustrative guidance, at the end of the day, the local authority can turn down the request to publish a notice for a competition based on those representations.
The Prime Minister said in the foreword to the White Paper that
“the local authority must move from being a provider of education to being its local commissioner and the champion of parent choice.”
The amendment will make the publication of a notice under clause 7 by a local authority obligatory if the local authority receives representations from 50 or more parents. It therefore gives force to the Prime Minister’s aspiration by requiring local authorities to set up a new school when large numbers of parents demand it.
The White Paper stated:
“We will ensure that...parents are able to set up new schools supported by a dedicated capital pot.”
On capital funding, it would be helpful if the Minister clarified what capital will be made available to parents or other bodies who want to propose a new school. Schedule 1 to the draft regulations states at paragraph 10 that the notice published by the local authority under clause 7 must contain a
“statement that the local education authority will meet the capital costs of implementing the proposals to the extent required by any enactment.”
The Minister’s explanation of that paragraph would be extremely helpful and would clarify the position for many groups who might want to set up a school under the proposals.
The press release when the Bill was published stated:
“Parents will be able to ask for new schools to be set up to reflect local need and demand.”
If 50 parents independently make such representations that is clearly evidence of an enormous groundswell of concern in an area. It is very difficult to achieve 50 representations that are co-ordinated, and that will happen only if there is widespread concern in a community about the quality of education provision in the area. That is a large number of parents to garner, I assure the Committee.

David Chaytor: I challenge the idea that 50 is a large number of parents. Fifty parents could be 25 families, who could live on the same street. When a school might, typically, have 1,200 children and 2,500 or more parents, how can the hon. Gentleman seriously argue that 25 families could have the power completely to destabilise the education system throughout the local authority?

Nick Gibb: I think that 50 is a large number to garner. Only once has a group of that number of parents come to me with concerns about anything specific in a school. Once 25 parents did come to me about one school, which was put into special measures two years later, but generally I have not found groups of that size approaching me as the Member of Parliament on an education issue. I do not think that people will sign up to such representation as easily as they would, say, sign a petition. People take those issues seriously and getting that number of parents sufficiently concerned to make such representations would reflect a community concern much wider than that of the 50 parents taking part.

Nadine Dorries: In deprived areas with many families from lower socio-economic groups, getting 50 parents to come forward is an even greater achievement than it is for other kinds of schools.

Nick Gibb: My hon. Friend makes another important point.
The hon. Member for Bury, North said in an earlier sitting that giving parents the power in question would give them greater democratic power in their area than other people who must rely on the ballot box every four years. I do not accept that argument. Exercising rights under the clause as I would want it to be amended would be the equivalent of exercising any other right to which the law entitles a person—using a complaints procedure, for example, or any of the services provided by a local authority in exchange for money. Indeed, making any representation to a local authority—particularly if it is to be acted on—could be regarded as a similar right. The new right would simply be a service provided by the local authority to which 50 parents acting together or individually could gain access. It would have no effect on the composition of the council or on what party or group ran the local authority.
Amendment No. 180, in the next group of amendments, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Bury, North, states:
“The Secretary of State may not refuse consent under subsection 5(b) (ii)”
in circumstances where the proposal for a community school is
“supported by parents in such numbers...as may be prescribed”.
Is that provision not exactly the same as amendment No. 179, although it relates to the establishment of a community school? Amendment No. 179 will, however, introduce a much more responsive approach to local parents’ needs and eliminate the insouciance and inertia that affect some local authorities. It will also go a long way towards achieving the Government’s stated objective of ensuring that all secondary and primary schools are self-governing and have acquired a trust. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman believes that the Government do not have an electoral mandate to deliver their objectives, because they certainly do.
Amendment No. 25 would insert the word “reasonable” in subsection (3)(c), which relates to the content of the notice that a local authority will publish under the clause. Subsection (3) states:
“A notice...must
(a) identify a possible site for the school,
(b) specify whether or not the proposed school is to be a special school,
(c) specify a date...by which the proposals must be submitted”.
The amendment states that that specified date must be reasonable to give potential proposers of a new school sufficient time to put together their proposals.
The Minister kindly circulated to the Committee the draft School Organisation (Establishment and Discontinuance of Maintained Schools) (England) Regulations 2006. Regulation 4 states:
“For the purposes of section 7(3)(c), the prescribed interval is an interval of 4 months from the date of the publication of the notice inviting proposals.”
Four months appears to be a reasonable period in which to put together such proposals, although their complexity might make the time scale far from generous. However, there is a balance to be struck: we must not only allow sufficient time for proposals to be put together, but remember that insufficient good schools will be available during that time. Every month that we give to reply to a notice is another month in which a school will continue to underperform. I would be grateful if the Minister said how she decided on four months and what consultation she had with potential proposers of new schools on how long it might take to put a proposal together.
Amendment No. 27 also relates to time periods. Under subsection (5), the local authority must publish proposals for a new school that are submitted to it as a result of the notice to invite proposals. Subsection (6) says that regulations should prescribe such a period. I hate to say this, but as with other amendments on time periods that we submitted before the publication of the draft regulations and before the Government made their policy clear, we have been far too easy-going with local authorities. The amendment specifies two months, but regulation 7 of the draft regulations specifies three weeks. I applaud the Government’s determination to press ahead at full speed with proposals to establish new schools. It would have been better to have the time periods in the Bill, but that is a small grumble compared with our delight at the tight time scale under which local authorities will have to publish proposals—a time scale that we support.
Liberal amendment No. 65 would enable the local authority to specify the qualification that it requires from those who propose a school. It seems to be designed to frustrate the establishment of new schools, because the requirement could be drawn up in a very restrictive manner. The schedules to the draft regulations set out detailed requirements as to the information that should be included in any proposals, including the type of school that is proposed and the school’s proposed ethos or ethoi. Paragraph 9 of schedule 2 to the draft regulations refers to
“Evidence of any relevant experience in education held by the proposer, or proposers.”
Precisely what experience the proposers have in relation to education will therefore be perfectly transparent to those who make decisions about proposals and those who might want to submit comments or objections to them, and those involved will be able to form their own judgment based on that information.

John Hayes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene on what is a comprehensive and typically well researched appraisal of the amendments and the Government’s position. Will he invite the Liberals to make it absolutely clear what additional information they think a local authority could usefully expect? The Government have made it clear that they want a great deal of information; what do the Liberals want that goes further than what the Government want in terms of information from those who wish to establish a new school?

Nick Gibb: My hon. Friend puts his finger on the point. My concern is that a local authority could have a very restrictive requirement in respect of the qualifications that it seeks from a proposer of a school—a requirement that is designed, in effect, to rule out any realistic chance of a group of people setting up a school. I am slightly baffled by the Liberals’ amendment because of their professed support for localism and opposition to centralised prescription. It is odd that their amendment is so prescriptive.
Clause 7 is important. It will enable, and make it easy, for parents and non-profit groups to establish a new school in an area that is underprovided with good schools. The Conservative party is committed to ensuring that we have more good schools and more places at good schools. It is unacceptable that any child should have to attend an underperforming or coasting school. Today, almost 1 million children attend poorly performing schools, and it is likely that a similar number attend coasting schools. We will support any measure the Government propose that we believe will raise standards or increase the number of good schools.
The clause helps to achieve that, and amendments Nos. 24, 179, 193, 25 and 27 would help to make it even more effective, and make the reforms even swifter.

Sarah Teather: I shall first speak to amendment No. 65, then turn my attention to the Conservative amendments.
Amendment No. 65 is a probing amendment that is intended to test what the Government would regard as appropriate qualifications—or, more specifically, what they would regard as inappropriate qualifications and backgrounds of those who wish to provide a trust. We have been trying to probe the Government on these matters for some time. I was pleased when the new draft regulations arrived today, and I eagerly scanned them to see whether they give any more information on who the Government consider to be unsuitable for providing trusts. They do not; they shed little light, saying only that the details of foundations’ charitable objectives should be published.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Stephen Williams) is a member of the Education and Skills Committee, and he asked the Secretary of State if she would rule out McDonald’s, for example, running schools through this model of trust schools. She did not.

Jacqui Smith: Can we put this one to rest? No private company could form a trust. As we have pointed out on numerous occasions, they will be charitable organisations.

Sarah Teather: I accept that point, but that does not mean that McDonald’s could not set up a trust—that the company could not set up a charitable organisation and then run schools. That is the point we are making.
In January, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) tabled a parliamentary question about whether a range of companies might be involved in setting up such trusts, such as tobacco companies, fast-food companies or supermarkets. Again, the Government declined to answer. Instead, the Minister replied:
“We welcome the involvement of partners from all sectors of the community and across the economy”.—[Official Report,31 January 2006; Vol. 442, c. Column Number 349W.]
In March 2006, my hon. Friend asked the question again, and related it more specifically to fast-food companies. The answer came back from the Government that it was not open to any organisation to set up school trusts, but they did not say specifically whether they had a particular problem in respect of this point. As I said, we are simply trying to probe the Government on what they consider to be suitable qualifications in that regard.

John Hayes: The hon. Lady seems excessively—I was about to say cautious, but that is the kindest word I can use; one might say paranoid. The organisations in question would have to establish trusts. Those trusts would have to be charities and be established under the normal criteria for any charity. We are not talking about a supermarket—and I am a doughty opponent of supermarkets, by the way—setting up a body that does not fit any of the perfectly proper terms in the legislation, so what is the hon. Lady really getting at?

Sarah Teather: I would be delighted to watch the hon. Gentleman tell his constituents that he would be happy for a fast-food company to be involved in forming a trust, because I suspect that his constituents would feel rather differently on the matter. As I have said, the amendment is probing. These are questions for the Government to answer, not us.

James Clappison: So that we can understand the background to the hon. Lady’s point, if a person came forward whom she regarded as being of a suitable character to run a trust, would she allow them to form a trust and set up a school under the provisions ofthe Bill?

Sarah Teather: Those are questions for the Minister to answer, not me. I shall quote the National Union of Teachers, because I know that that always gets Conservative Members excited. The NUT said today that it was particularly concerned about fast-food companies being involved in forming trusts. The Department for Education and Skills is on record as describing that as “codswallop”, but there does not appear to be anything in the Bill that would prevent it from happening. I merely wish to probe the Government on what exactly they feel are the boundaries, or indeed on whether they have any boundaries or any specific concerns at all.
Let me turn to the Conservative amendments. In relation to amendment No. 24, we will need to address exactly why schools are underperforming. There is not, as yet, any evidence to suggest that if a new school is set up under a trust model, that will raise standards. It is not a question of simply having that kind of trigger and setting up schools on the back of that automatic presumption. There is no adequate evidence base. If the evidence base showed something different, I could see some reason to support the proposals, but it does not.
Although I have considerable concerns about the way in which amendment No. 179 is drafted, I do not wish there to be a knee-jerk rejection of it; there is the germ of something interesting in the idea of allowing parents, through a petition, to trigger some kind of response. The question is what that response should be. Should it be the automatic publication of a notice and a competition to set up a new school, or would a review or inquiry, which could take any number of forms, be more appropriate? That might be something done by officers in the council, or a review process undertaken by the oversight or scrutiny committees. Any of those might be another option.
I take the point made by the hon. Member for Bury, North, that 50 parents is really a very small number indeed; I have no problem getting 50 individuals to sign a petition in my neighbourhood on many issues. There is something interesting in the idea of making sure that petitions trigger some kind of response beyond a mere press release in the local paper and leaflets on the back of that. That is an interesting point that needs exploring, although I would not be prepared to support the amendment in its current form.
On amendment No. 25, as the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton said, the regulations define what is considered to be reasonable. I have no problem with the term set out in the regulations, so I would not support amendment No. 27. I feel that my concerns as regards supporting amendment No. 25 have been adequately addressed.

David Chaytor: First, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton for quoting so generously from a document that I had a hand in writing. When he read the extracts, it seemed even more balanced and reasonable than when I contributed to it.
I rise to speak against amendments Nos. 24, 179 and 193. In doing so, I am conscious that my criticisms might ultimately help the hon. Gentleman, because he might come back on Report with slightly improved amendments that are more acceptable.
In amendment No. 24, the arbitrary figure of 35 per cent. of school places being in schools that are underperforming completely invalidates the concept for which the hon. Gentleman argues, because he has presented no evidence as to why 35 per cent. is the magic figure. Nor has he done the research—perhaps he should take tea at the Savoy—to tell us how many local authorities would fall into the relevant category. I accept that it would not be the first time that an arbitrary figure has appeared in legislation, but the hon. Gentleman does not do his argument much credit by simply plucking that figure out of the air. If he could tell us that at 25 per cent., x number of local authorities would be brought into the threshold, and that at 35 per cent., y number of local authorities would be brought into it—if he could give us some reasons for the figure—his argument might be more valid.

John Hayes: The point is surely the principle. My hon. Friend made it clear that there is no magic number, but the principle of that sort of popular engagement in the process is one that we could usefully debate. Does the hon. Gentleman support the principle of the community playing a role in that way? Does he think that there should be a popular element triggering the process?

David Chaytor: I support the principle underlying the basis of our democracy: local decisions should be made through the ballot box, not through an arbitrary proportion of individuals triggering actions that could have untold consequences.
That leads me to amendment No. 179 and the figure of 50 parents. As I said earlier, 50 parents could represent 25 families. Indeed, in some parts of the country, with some minority ethnic groups in which the extended family is still dominant, it could mean one family. I can think of one or two large extended families in my constituency that could summon up 50 parents, all of whose children could, theoretically, go to the same school, and they could trigger the process. Clearly, that is a nonsense. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and Conservative Members would realise that it is a nonsense if they thought about it a little more. If they were to propose a higher figure, there might be the germ of an idea there, but I reiterate my point that if we are to set in motion a process of change to deal with underperformance, it is better to do that through normal democratic procedures and the ballot box than through the action of a small number of people.
The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton tried to draw an analogy with other services that local authorities provide or a complaints procedures—saying that x number of people can trigger a formal complaints procedure—but those are utterly different processes. The consequences of closing schools and opening new schools, and of changing the ownership and management of schools, will go far wider and impact on far more people. The effect is not limited simply to the number of people signing the petition calling for the change.

Edward Leigh: It is a noble concept that people can use the ballot box to change things, but when people in Bury, for example, go to vote in a few weeks’ time—if they are going to do so—and there are Labour, Liberal and Conservative candidates, does the hon. Gentleman really think that the particular problems of a particular school will make any difference to their vote in that huge election? The matter is far more local than that is it not?

David Chaytor: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raises that point, because it touches on an issue in my constituency involving a school closure. I am confident that the issue will be resolved through the ballot box on Thursday 4 May. In my constituency and in the constituency of the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis), two school closures have been passionately opposed by a small number of parents. Those two high-profile campaigns generated a lot of noise and much passion and anger. The question is to what extent campaigns by comparatively small number of parents are representative of the parent body as a whole. It seems that the only way to get an answer to that question is through the collective voice of the people of Bury, North and of Bury, South in the municipal elections on 4 May. I am confident that the people will endorse the local authority’s proposal, which will settle the matter—if not once and for all, at least for the immediate future. It is important to support the normal procedures of democracy rather than invent devious ways to subvert them.
Amendment No. 103 deals with the definition of underperforming. It is important that the Bill should define it. We—I mean the Government, Ofsted and we as Members of Parliament—use the term “underperforming” rather loosely, as we do the concept of a “good” school. It is important to have criteria. The question is whether the criterion of a school appearing in the
“fourth quartile of value added measures”
for the previous academic year is in itself an adequate definition of underperformance. I do not think that it is, and I mention two points in support of my contention.
First, there are all sorts of reasons why a school that has been in the first, second or third quartile for several years might slip into the fourth quartile for one year. Those reasons could range from a change of management and leadership at the school to problems with a particular cohort in one year, and all kinds of external circumstances. Choosing the year immediately previous before as the single reference point is not adequate. Secondly, there is the nature of a quartile. It is in the nature of quartiles that one group of schools will always be in the fourth quartile. It does not necessarily mean that, by being in the fourth quartile, a school is underperforming.

Nadine Dorries: The hon. Gentleman has said he does not think 50 is a representative number of parents in a school and that he does not agree with the criteria to determine which schools are underperforming. What number would be a good number of parents; and if he does not agree with Ofsted, what would he class as an underperforming school?

David Chaytor: My point is that there is a needfor a serious debate about what constitutes underperformance in schools. This is the moment for it, but it is not necessarily for the Committee to determine today. It should appear in legislation at some point, but to pluck an arbitrary criterion out of the air and try to insert it into primary legislation is not the way forward.
My next comments apply as much to amendment No. 193 as to amendment No. 24. The difficult with such arbitrary thresholds is that they are easily manipulated. For example, for a director of children’s services or the chief executive of a local authority faced with the prospect of 35 per cent. of its school places being in underperforming schools, the easiest way to avoid the action that the Opposition want to trigger would be to manipulate and increase the number of school places, thereby bringing the local authority below the threshold. That is a simple example of how such things can be done. Although the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton focused on the value added measure rather than the raw scores of league tables as his criterion for underperformance, I am absolutely confident that, as the value added methodology becomes established, it will be subject to the same kind of subtle manipulation as the raw scores in leagues tables are now. For those reasons, I oppose the amendments.
Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Cawsey.]

Adjourned accordingly at Seven o'clock till Thursday 20 April at Nine o'clock.